Developing and evaluating a peer-based mental health literacy intervention with adolescent athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread adolescent involvement in organized sport means that sport contexts are well-suited to 'actively' integrate prevention programs that may promote population-level change. This mixed methods study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-based mental health literacy intervention. The intervention (i.e., Team Talk) was presented to eleven adolescent sport teams in the United States, with a total of 174 participants. Athlete participants completed surveys immediately before and after the intervention-including measures of workshop acceptability, social identity, and help-seeking behaviors. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with a subset of five athletes, nine parents, and two coaches. With respect to recruitment as an indicator of feasibility, club-level adoption of the intervention was low, with difficulty recruiting clubs for intervention delivery. This signals that feasibility of the intervention-as it is currently designed and implemented by the research team-is low when considering similar competitive adolescent sport clubs and delivered as team-level workshops. Meanwhile, participants reported high acceptability of the intervention, and acceptability levels across participants was predicted by contextual factors related to implementation such as session duration. Regarding limited efficacy testing with measures completed before and after the intervention session: (a) social identity scores increased following the intervention, and (b) significant differences were not identified regarding efficacy to recognize symptoms of mental disorders. Athlete, coach, and parent interview responses also described potential adaptations to mental health programs. This research demonstrates the potential utility of peer-based mental health literacy interventions, while also revealing that further implementation research is necessary to adapt mental health literacy interventions to suit diverse adolescent sport contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".